Technology Law Source

Tag Archives: TSCA

The EPA Inspector General’s Report

The task of the Inspectors General of Federal agencies is to examine "all actions of a government agency or military organization. Conducting audits and investigations, either independently or in response to reports of wrongdoing, the OIG ensures that the agency’s operations are in compliance with the law and general established policies of the government. Audits conducted by the OIG are intended to ensure the effectiveness of security procedures, or to discover the possibility of misconduct, waste, fraud, theft, or certain types of criminal activity by individuals or groups related to the agency’s operation."

At the end of 2011, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted Report No. 12-P-0162,"EPA Needs to Manage Nanomaterial Risks More Effectively" to the reports section of its website.

The OIG, in the Introduction to the report, states that the

. . .  purpose of this review was to determine how effectively the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is managing the human health and environmental risks of nanomaterials.

The report notes that

EPA has the statutory authority to regulate nanomaterials. . . . EPA can regulate nanomaterials during their manufacture, formulation, distribution in commerce, use, and/or disposal through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) . . . nanomaterials in pesticides through the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) . . . . EPA can regulate nanomaterials released into the environment using the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act; or the Resource Conservation …

S.847: The Safe Chemicals Act of 2011

Senator Lautenberg:This isn’t a reorganization of the way we function here. It is to be another version of TSCA, far less harmful but having a law that does cover the bases.

Introduced by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) on 04/14/2011, S. 847, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2011", is the third bill introduced in the last two years with the intent of reforming and strengthening the Toxic Substances Cotrol Act . S. 3209, the "Safe Chemicals Act of 2010", also introduced by Senator Lautenberg, and H.R. 5820, the "Toxic Chemicals Safety Act of 2010", introduced by Representives Bobby L. Rush (D-IL-1st) and Henry Waxman (D-CA-30th), were intoduced during the 2nd Session of the 111th Congress, but died in committee when the 111th Congress adjourned sine die.

As was noted by a witness at a hearing of the Senate Environment and Publicworks Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health Subcommittee on 02/04/2011

. . . while TSCA was an important step when it was first passed in 1976, it is the only major environmental statute that has not been reauthorized since its initial passage. TSCA is clearly showing its age and its limitations.

A recent article in Pediatrics discusses the limitations of TSCA in greater detail than is possible in this posting.

S. 847 would amend TSCA in several ways.

1- Manufacturers and processors would be required to

submit the minimum data set for the chemical substance to the Administrator–


    `(A) for new chemical substances, concurrent with the notice required under

New Nano-specific Regulations Forthcoming from U.S. EPA

This article originally appeared on the National Nanomanufacturing Network’s InterNano website. It is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.

In its ongoing efforts to guard against potential unintended environmental, health, or safety injuries related to possible exposure to certain nanoscale materials, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plans to issue three new proposed nano-specific regulations in January 2011. While EPA is already actively regulating certain nanoscale materials which it considers new chemical substances (e.g./ carbon nanotubes, fullerenes, etc.), the new proposed rules will provide EPA with greater latitude in regulating both new and existing nanoscale materials. Manufacturers working with nanoscale materials should keep a very close eye on these new proposed regulations to determine whether they will be required to comply with any of EPA’s final rulings. Additionally, there will be opportunities for public comment and input.

Significant New Use Rule

Advocacy groups have been asking EPA for years to treat nanoscale versions of existing chemical substances as significant new uses of those substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). These types of substances include nanoscale silver, nanoscale TiO2, and nanoscale zinc oxide. Among other things, treating these materials as significant new uses of existing chemical substances would allow EPA to limit their production, require the use of workplace safety measures, require companies to conduct toxicity testing, and require companies to prevent intentional/purposeful releases of the materials to water.

Although its exact parameters have not been released, it appears that EPA intends to issue a proposed significant new …

EPA Proposes TSCA Inventory Reporting Modifications

In the Federal Register issue of 08/13/2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released for public comment a proposed rule that would, if adopted, significantly change the TSCA Inventory Update Reporting (IUR).

The first part of the notice, "Supplementary Information", explains the proposed changes to 40 CFR Parts 704, 710, and 711. The text of the proposed rule follows the Supplementary Information.

In the Supplementary Information, EPA states that it is proposing modifications to the IUR

 to meet four primary goals:     1. To tailor the information collected to better meet the Agency’s overall information needs.     2. To increase its ability to effectively provide public access to the information.     3. To obtain new and updated information relating to potential exposures to a subset of chemical substances listed on the TSCA Inventory.     4. To improve the usefulness of the information reported. EPA believes that expanding the range of chemical substances for which comprehensive information is to be reported and adjusting the specific reported information, the method and

[[Page 49659]]

frequency of collecting the information, and CBI requirements will accomplish these goals.

Reading the Supplemental Information reveals a fifth, unstated goal – the creation of uniform reporting standards that will provide EPA with the information it needs to "identify and take follow-up action on chemical substances that may pose potential risks to human health or the environment" in a more efficent and timely manner, cutting the amount of time EPA staff will need to spend reviewing submitted information, determining if EPA action is required …

EPA Reopens Comment Period for Proposed SNUR for MWCNT

In a notice published in the Federal register on July 28, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it was adding new information to its public docket EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0686 and was reopening the comment period for  a proposed Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) for multiwalled carbon nanotubes (MWCNTS) first published in the Federal Register on February 3, 2010.

The proposed rule requires "persons who intend to manufacture, import, or process the substance" – described elsewhere in the notice as "multi-walled carbon nanotubes(generic)" to "be used as an additive/filler for polymer composites and support media for industrial catalysts" – "for an activity that is designated as a significant new use by this proposed rule to notify EPA at least 90 days before commencing that activity". This would give EPA time to assess "risks that may be presented by the intended uses and, if appropriate, to regulate the proposed use before it occurs."

Information regarding submission of comments will be found in the original notice of February 3, 2010.

The "Significant New Use" for the MWCNTS (generic) are described in the Feb. 3, 2010 notice as

certain changes from the use scenario described in the PMN could result in increased exposures, thereby constituting a “significant new use.” EPA has determined that activities proposed as a “significant new use” satisfy the two requirements stipulated in Sec.  721.170(c)(2), i.e., these significant new use activities, “(i) are different from those described in the premanufacture notice for the substance, including any amendments, deletions, and additions of activities …

GAO Provides Recommendations Regarding EPA’s Effort to Regulate Nanomaterials

On Friday, the United States Government Accountability Office issued its Report to the Chairman (Barbara Boxer) of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, US Senate, GAO-10-549:

Nanotechnology: Nanomaterials Are Widely used in Commerce, but EPA Faces Challenges in Regulating Risk.

Highlights from the report follow.  The report confirms speculation that EPA intends to issue certain new rules pertaining to select nanomaterials by the end of 2010.


"EPA has taken a mulitpronged approach to understanding and regulating the risks of nanomaterials, including conducting further research and implementing a voluntary data collection program. Furthermore, under its existing statutory framework, EPA has regulated some nanomaterials but not others. Although the EPA is planning to issue additional regulations later this year, these changes have not yet gone into effect and products may be entering into the market without EPA review of all available information on their potential risk. Moreover, EPA faces challenges in effectively regulating nanomaterials that may be released in air, water, and waste because it lacks the technology to monitor and characterize these materials or the statutes include volume based regulatory thresholds that may be too high for effectively regulating the production and disposal of nanomaterials."


"In the fall of 2009, EPA announced it would reconsider the policy described in its January 2008 document, TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances — General Approach, and subsequently announced it planned to develop a SNUR to regulate nanoscale versions of conventional scaled chemicals that are already on the TSCA inventory as a significant new …

EPA to Reverse Position on ‘Existing’ Nanomaterials

Last September we predicted that sometime in 2010 EPA would reverse its "distinct molecular identity" approach to determining when and whether nanoscale materials are considered New Chemical Substances requiring premanufacturing notice and approval under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).   We have been advising clients accordingly. 

Inside EPA is now reporting that "EPA toxics chief Steve Owens" . . . "is expected to announce the shift Feb. 5."

Thus, tomorrow should be an interesting day in nano-regulatory-land.  We will provide our readers with a detailed analysis should EPA in fact reverse itself on this important issue.  Stay tuned . . .…

New Edition of Nanotechnology Law Report

New Edition of Nanotechnology Law Report

Inside you will find:

  • EPA Considering New Approach to Nanoscale Materials Under TSCA
  • EPA May Issue Mandatory Data Collection Rule for Nanoscale Materials Under TSCA
  • EPA Takes Aim at Antimicrobial Products Under FIFRA
  • EPA Unveils New Principles for Chemical Management Reform
  • EPA Report on the Use of Nanoscale TiO2 in Water and Sunscreens
  • EPA Withdraws Carbon Nanotube SNURs
  • Press Release: New Contributing Editor for InterNano
  • Virginia CLE presentation: “Insurance, Nanotechnology, and Risk”
  • Nanoparticles and Deaths in the People’s Republic
  • Sweating the Small Stuff
  • Soil Association Cites China Deaths in Renewed Call for Moratorium on Nanotechnology Commercialization
  • Nanotechnology Legislation in the 111th Congress
  • Mapping Nano
  • Flight of the Nanobees


New Article: Examples of Recent EPA Regulation of Nanoscale Materials Under the Toxic Substances Control Act

Nanotechnology Law & Business just published our new article on the EPA’s recent treatment of nanoscale materials under the Toxic Substances Control Act.  An abstract for the article is below and you can find a copy of the article itself here.

Abstract: This article provides a summary of recent (2008-2009) regulatory efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the Toxic Substances Control Act concerning nanoscale materials. These efforts include entering into two consent orders with a manufacturer of carbon nanotubes; issuing four significant new use rules for two siloxane-based nanoparticles and two carbon nanotubes (and then withdrawing the latter two); intimating that new testing and data collection rules will be implemented for certain nanoscale materials; and proposing and/or requiring acute toxicity rat inhalation testing regimes in certain instances. The authors explain these developments in detail and then provide some initial strategic and legal considerations for businesses attempting to navigate this emerging regulatory thicket.

EPA Unveils New Administration Framework for Chemical Management Reform in the US

In recent weeks, Health care reform and financial regulatory reform efforts by the Obama administration have been getting the majority of the media and public’s attention, but at the same time reform and updating of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) has been in the background.

Yesterday, during a speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced the administration’s "Essential Principles for Reform of Chemicals Management Legislation". Some of the principles that Ms. Jackson highlighted in her speech are:

First, we need to review all chemicals against safety standards that are based solely on considerations of risk – not economics or other factors – and we must set these standards at levels that are protective of human health and the environment.

Second, safety standards cannot be applied without adequate information, and responsibility for providing that information should rest on industry. Manufacturers must develop and submit the hazard, use, and exposure data demonstrating that new and existing chemicals are safe. If industry doesn’t provide the information, EPA should have the tools to quickly and efficiently require testing, without the delays and procedural obstacles currently in place.

Third, both EPA and industry must include special consideration for exposures and effects on groups with higher vulnerabilities – particularly children. Children ingest chemicals at a higher ratio to their body weight than adults, and are more susceptible to long-term damage and developmental problems. Our new principles offer them much stronger protections.

Fourth, when chemicals fall short of the safety …

EPA to Issue Mandatory Data Collection Rule for Nanoscale Materials Under TSCA

Eight months after EPA’s interim report on industry participation (or lack thereof) in its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, EPA’s Toxic Substances Control Act’s ("TSCA") Interagency Testing Committee ("ITC") published a report in today’s Federal Register mentioning that EPA intends to issue a new mandatory data collection rule for nanoscale materials under TSCA Section 8(a):

"EPA intends to develop a proposed TSCA section 8(a) rule to obtain information on the production, uses, and exposures of existing nanoscale materials.  EPA has indicated that it will ensure that the chemicals where there is ITC interest as described in this unit are either included in that action or are otherwise new chemical substances subject to premanufacture notifications (PMN) reporting under TSCA.  EPA also intends to develop a proposed TSCA section 4 rule to develop needed environmental, health, and safety data."

Among other things, TSCA section 8(a) allows EPA to issue a rule requiring the mandatory submission of data regarding:

(A) The common or trade name, the chemical identity, and the molecular structure of each chemical substance or mixture for which such a report is required.

(B) The categories or proposed categories of use of each such substance or mixture.

(C) The total amount of each such substance and mixture manufactured or processed, reasonable estimates of the total amount to be manufactured or processed, the amount manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use, and reasonable estimates of the amount to be manufactured or processed for each of its categories of use or …

EPA Issues Clarification Regarding Carbon Nanotube SNURs

Readers may interested in learning that EPA issued a clarification today regarding its single-walled and multi-walled carbon nanotube SNURs previously issued in June 2009. EPA’s announcement follows.  Stay tuned . . .

Good afternoon.  On June 24, 2009, the U.S. EPA issued final Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for 23 new chemicals, including two carbon nanotubes (nanoscale materials) (  The SNURs will allow the commercialization of these specific carbon nanotubes under limited conditions to protect against unreasonable risks to human health and the environment.  

The SNURs require companies to notify EPA at least 90 days before manufacture, import, or processing of the specific carbon nanotubes for any activity not meeting the conditions specified in the rules at 40 C.F.R. 721.10155  and 40 C.F.R. 721.10156.

Upon reviewing the rules some stakeholders have asked EPA whether these SNURs apply to all variants of carbon nanotubes. This is not the case. These SNURs only apply to the specific carbon nanotubes that were the subject of the premanufacture notices (PMNs) submitted under Section 5 of TSCA and not to any other carbon nanotubes.  Other carbon nanotubes must be notified through EPA’s New Chemicals Program.   The U.S. EPA strongly encourages all manufacturers and importers of nanoscale materials that are intended for commercial use to consult with the Agency in advance of production or importation.

If you have any questions, please contact:

Zofia Kosim (202-564-8733) or Jim Alwood (202-564-8974) or ——————————————————————– David E. Giamporcaro …

EPA Issues Significant New Use Rules for Multi-Walled and Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

In the June 24, 2009 federal register, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued two proposed Significant New Use Rules (SNUR) under Section 5(a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) for multi-walled and single walled carbon nanotubes.  The SNURs followed up on the EPA’s prior September 2008 consent orders entered into with Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. (Swan) for two of its Elicarb carbon nanotube products.

Under TSCA, the prior September 2008 consent orders were only binding on Swan.  "Consequently, after signing a Section 5(e) Consent Order, EPA generally promulgates a Significant New Use Rule (SNUR) that mimics the Consent Order to bind all other manufacturers and processors to the terms and conditions contained in the Consent Order.  The SNUR requires that manufacturers, importers and processors of certain substances notify EPA at least 90 days before beginning any activity that EPA has designated as a "significant new use. These new use designations are typically those activities prohibited by the Section 5(e) Consent Order."

Under the terms of the Septmeber 2008 consent orders which are incorporated into the new proposed SNURs, significant new uses of multi-walled and singled-walled carbon nanotubes are deemed to occur when employees do not “use gloves impervious to nanoscale particles and chemical protective clothing;” and/or fail to “use a NIOSH-approved full-face respirator with an N-100 cartridge while exposed by inhalation in the work area.”

Thus, the new proposed SNURs require these same conditions.

Manufacturers should also be aware that the EPA considers carbon nanotubes new chemical

Interim Report: Lukewarm Response to EPA’s Nanoscale Material Stewardship Program

Earlier today, the EPA published an interim status report regarding its Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program.  A final report is expected in early 2010.

Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program, Interim Report, January 2009, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.

At the outset, EPA notes that "[t]he findings and conclusions [of the] report should not be construed or interpreted to represent any Agency regulatory or statutory guidance or statement of official Agency policy."   Several companies submitting NMSP data should be relieved by this disclaimer, as EPA identified 18 nanoscale materials in NMSP submissions which may be considered new chemical substances under TSCA and subject to premanufacturing notice requirements.  Whether EPA takes any enforcement steps in this regard remains to be seen.

Getting to the highlights of the report, EPA concludes that the NMSP has (thus far) produce mixed results:

  • "In the aggregate, the NMSP has sufficiently advanced EPA’s knowledge and understanding to enable the Agency to take further steps towards evaluating and, where appropriate, mitigating potential risks to health and the environment."
  • "It appears that nearly two-thirds of the chemical substances from which commercially available nanoscale materials are based were not reported under the Basic Program."
  • "It appears that approximately 90% of the different nanoscale materials that are likely to be commercially available were not reported under the Basic Program."
  • "The low rate of engagement in the In-Depth Program suggests that most companies are not inclined to voluntarily test their nanoscale materials."

EPA’s overall conclusion is that:

"[T]he NMSP can be considered …

EPA Issues Significant New Use Rules for Two Nanomaterials

This article, which appeared in the Nov. 17, 2008 issue of Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Volume 37, No. 3, was reproduced with permission from Agra Informa. Further use of this article is prohibited without the express written permission of the publisher. For more information about Pesticide & Toxic Chemical News, Food Chemical News or other Agra Informa publications, go to: .

EPA earlier this month announced it is promulgating significant new use rules (SNURs) under TSCA for two nanomaterials — siloxane modified silica nanoparticles and siloxane modified alumina nanoparticles — that were subject to premanufacture notices (PMNs). Some stakeholders view the move as a further sign that EPA is willing to use its authority to regulate nanomaterials, although to what extent remains uncertain.…

Carbon Nanotubes and TSCA Registrations

Today, US EPA issued a Federal Register notice stating the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) registration requirements are "potentially applicable to carbon nanotubes."  EPA confirmed its position the CNTs are "chemical substances distinct from graphite or other allotropes of carbon listed on the TSCA inventory."  The bottom line is stated succinctly by EPA: "Many CNTs may therefore be new chemicals under TSCA Section 5."…

Registration of Carbon Nanoscale Materials Required Under REACH

The EC’s 2006 Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Registration of Chemicals ("REACH") regulations place "the responsibility for the management of the risks of [chemical] substances with. . .[the companies that] manufacture, import, place on the market or use [the] substances in the context of their professional activities."  Guidance on Registration, Guidance for the Implementation of REACH, European Chemicals Agency, Version 1.3, May 2008, at p. 12.  

To this end, REACH requires companies manufacturing or importing chemical substances in quantities greater than one ton per year to register those substances before they "can be manufactured, imported or placed on the market."  As part of these requirements, "manufacturers and importers need to collect or generate data on the substances and assess how risks to human health and environment can be controlled by applying suitable risk management measures."  This can often be an expensive and time consuming process.

Providing some relief in certain circumstances, Article 2(7)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 provides that certain substances are exempt from registration under REACH because "sufficient information is known about these substances that they are considered to cause minimum risk because of their intrinsic properties." These substances are listed in REACH Annex IV.

On October 8, 2008, the EC removed carbon and graphite from Annex IV "due to the fact that the concerned Einecs and/or CAS numbers are used to identify forms of carbon or graphite at the nano-scale, which do not meet the criteria for inclusion in" Annex IV.   We first posted

EPA Consent Order for Multi-Walled Carbon Nanotubes

Last month we reported on a press release by Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. of the United Kingdom indicating the company had recently entered into a PMN consent order with the EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) concerning one of its multi-walled carbon nanotube (MWCNT) products. Barring an unusual coincidence, it appears that EPA has recently published a redacted version of the Swan Consent order here.

The order makes it clear that the PMN was submitted pursuant to § 5(a)(1) of TSCA, and that it covers a MWCNT product. Additionally, the consent order places several requirements on the manufacturer. Specifically, the manufacturer is required to:

  1. Deliver 1 gram of the MWCNTs to EPA with a copy of MSDS for the product;
  2. Conduct “90 day inhalation toxicity study in rats with a post exposure; observation period of up to 3 months, including bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (“BALF”) analysis (OPPTS 870.3465 or OECD 413);
  3. Submit material characterization data within six months (see below);
  4. Ensure employees “use gloves impervious to nanoscale particles and chemical protective clothing;” and
  5. Ensure employees “use a NIOSH-approved full-face respirator with an N-100 cartridge while exposed by inhalation in the work area.”

Regarding the second requirement, the consent order also provides the manufacturer with an opportunity to submit toxicity testing data under the Agency’s new Nanoscale Material Stewardship Program as an alternative to the 90 day mouse inhalation test: “If, for example, a consortium of companies commit to testing a representative set of MWCNT for subchronic mammalian toxicity, …

Recommendations for New Nano-Specific Regulation

As Mike Heintz reported earlier today, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars’ Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies issued a report yesterday providing some guidance regarding where it believes the next administration should start with the issue of nanotechnology regulation next January.

J. Clarence Davies, "Nanotechnology Oversight: An Agenda for the New Administration," Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, PEN 13, July 2008. Among other suggestions, Mr. Davies advocates enacting new nano-specific legislation in the following areas.

TSCA: Mr. Davies offers specific legislative language for amending TSCA "to make clear that nanomaterials are covered as new substances." Other changes he suggests: "remove the catch-22 that requires EPA to show that a new chemical poses a risk before the agency can obtain enough information to determine whether it actually poses a risk;" "remove the conditions and requirements that guarantee that EPA can never regulate an existing substance;" and narrow TSCA’s confidential business information and data sharing provisions.

FFDCA: Mr. Davies argues the FFDCA should be amended to require submission and review by FDA of cosmetic active ingredient registration information.  He further maintains that "FDA should also be authorized to forbid marketing of any cosmetic containing an ingredient that is not safe or for which adequate test data are not available," and that applicable FDA laws should be altered "to make clear where and how to draw the line between a drug and a cosmetic."  Mr. Davies additionally recommends requiring premarket safety testing on food and cosmetic ingredients incorporating nanoscale …

ES&T On Nanotechnology Safety

Environmental Science & Technology recently released an editorial discussing nanotechnology safety issues and, more importantly, the recent debate over whether EPA should regulate nanoscale materials as new chemicals under TSCA.  The editorial succinctly sets forth EPA’s position, as expressed by Jim Willis, EPA’s Chemical Control Division Director, on the TSCA issue this way: 

In an EPA document, TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances—General Approach, released on July 12, the agency explained why it could not group all nanomaterials as new substances solely on the basis of size. This is because the definition of a new chemical under TSCA is based on only molecular structure or identity. If a nanomaterial contains the same molecules as a chemical already in the TSCA inventory, it is an existing chemical, says Willis. And almost all nanomaterials being researched and manufactured today are chemically identical to existing chemicals in the TSCA inventory. Thus, EPA has no authority to regulate them. Carbon nanotubes and fullerenes, for example, are made of carbon, an existing chemical in the inventory.

h/t to


NIOSH Urges EPA to Treat All Nanoscale Materials as New Chemical Substances Under TSCA

New chemical substances that are not on EPA’s existing Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)chemical inventory are subject to premanufacturing notice and approval requirements.  Many NGOs have urged EPA to treat all nanoscale materials as new chemical substances under TSCA because of potential environmental, health, and safety concerns shown in laboratory settings.  Such treatment would trigger TSCA’s premanufacturing notice and approval requirements.  This past July, EPA indicated it did not currently intend to accept this approach because it considers "new" chemicals as those that have molecular identities that are not reflected on the inventory.


Reminder: Comments Sought by US EPA on Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program

Just a reminder to those interested in commenting on US EPA’s draft documents concerning the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program (NMSP): comments are due to the Agency on or before September 10, 2007. 

US EPA is seeking comments on three draft publications: the "Concept Paper for the Nanoscale Materials Stewardship Program under TSCA, " the "TSCA Inventory Status of Nanoscale Substances – General Approach," and the Information Collection Request (ICR) in Support of EPA’s Stewardship Program for Nanoscale Materials.

The full text of all three can be found here.…

Review: Nanotechnology: What You Need to Know on the Law, Regulation, and Science Policy Front

On November 16, 2006, the American Bar Association held their second of eight teleconferences concerning the regulation of nanomaterials.  The teleconference, moderated by Lynn L. Bergeson, entitled Nanotechnology: What You Need to Know on the Law, Regulation, and Science Policy Front , consisted of a three member panel, representing three different regulatory perspectives.  The panel members were: Jennifer Sass, Ph.D., Natural Resources Defense Council, Jim Alwood, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and William P. Gulledge, American Chemistry Council.…